There's a flaw in this argument: On Monday, July 8, 2002, at 11:10 AM, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
Let us imagine that all efforts to enforce copyright on the internet were abandoned, and that everyone in the world has a fat pipe capable of downloading movies.
First, most people who want to see lord of the rings want to see it a theatre. The scene in the mines of Moria, the backgrounder on the origin of the ring, the dark riders crossing the river, are all written for the big screen, and are worthless on a small screen.
Secondly, most people who want to see lord of the rings do it as a pilgrimage, so they do it when it first comes out, and they take a date, or go with a bunch of friends. It is positively sacriligious to see it on a small screen, or to see it without making a special occasion of it. After all this is not just another Buffy episode.
Thus fat pipes and an end to internet copyright would have had no significant effect on the profits from the Lord of the Rings.
People would go to theaters to see the film in all of its glory, true. But the theaters would no longer, in your scenario, have to fork over money to the studios. (Unless you are positing some situation where anybody may download any film, but then not display it to others. Or that theaters would face special regulation by government, etc.) In any case, I know a _lot_ of people who watch most of their films on cable or satellite or DVD. And cable/DVD sell through is an important part of studio revenues. An end to copyright would have a _significant_ effect on revenue. Note that I'm not endorsing copyright as it now stands, just disputing your point that ending download restrictions would have no effect on studio profits. --Tim May "Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound"